E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Eye for an eye?

The gunpoint rape and cold-blooded murder of an innocent 21-year-old Gresham woman brings many a person's blood to a boil. The police easily collared the suspect, along with, they say, both DNA evidence and a confession. So what should society do with the human trash who perpetrated these hideous crimes?

Please, let's not have a repeat of this recent case in Portland, in which our criminal justice system failed miserably. But should we go ahead and act on the natural desire for swift, plain, and simple retribution? There will likely be a guilty plea -- either that or a finding of insanity. If the defendant pleads guilty, what should the sentence be? And if he's found to be insane, what's the program for the rest of his life?

Seriously: Whatever we do, it seems as if the human race will produce some irreducable number of miscreants, and the innocent among us will suffer and die as a result. Our approach, with the death penalty as a centerpiece, is shared by countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and China, except that we do it slowly and expensively and with a great deal of uncertainty, as if we lacked -- I'm searching here for the right word -- conviction. By contrast, Norway seems not to be willing to put away its mass murderer for good, let alone take his life. What works? I have no idea; but state-sanctioned killing doesn't make me feel better.

The death penalty is what many judges and juries would find in this case, but of course, in Oregon the will of the people is ignored. Even if the guilty deserves to die, wants to die, and should die, the Gov will prevent it.

And it is not about what makes people feel better, it is about obeying the law. The death penalty is the law of the land of Oregon. Oregon should enforce it or change it.

But even with the death penalty enforced (which it is not in Oregon) I doubt it is much of a deterrent now, nor would it be, imho, if it was enforced. There are evil people out there, and there always will be.

As it is such defendants often plea guilty to avoid the death penalty. They can get life with no real possibility of an expensive appeal because they have admitted their guilt. Take away the death penalty and then what will they plea to? Much lesss than life behind bars I suspect. We know no-one really dies here when they get a death sentence, so keep it in place to compel justice.

And by the way, the notion there are innocent people out there taking a life sentence for fear of getting the needle is poppycock. No one who is truely innocent is going to give up their appeal process in a state where no one dies.

Finally, I'm OK with not killing these creeps and giving them life in a 12 by 12 cell. Death is the easy way out, and offers no chance for the beast to reflect daily on his actions, for the rest of his miserable life.

It never ceases to astonish that commenters whose blood boils 365 days a year over the ineptitude of government and the venality and often criminality of police forces, and the sometimes bizarre or even sociopathic nature of those who seek power are so often cool with government killing people.

If government can't organize a two- car parade without screwing it up, then why in god's name would anyone want government to have the ability to kill people? It doesn't deter, it costs lots more even to reach a degree of error that still leaves people who didn't do the crime on death row, and it absolutely does lead to coerced confessions from innocents.

God not only allows the death penalty, he instructs it to happen in the case of intentional murder. See Deuteronomy 19:11-13.

God suggests we murder people for just about every reason under the sun in the Old Testament. Not entirely sure that's a great basis for our legal system, unless of course you think a woman should be stoned to death outside the walls of the city for claiming to be a virgin when in fact she has previously "known" a man.

Well said, GA. I cannot understqand why the same people who claim government does not do anything right can claim it is wise enough to determine when human life begins or when it should end. Lock them up for life and keep the crazies off the street. Unfortunately the Death Penalty is just a time and money suck.

GA Seldes makes an excellent point. Additionally , if you think murder is O.K., then you're going to use terms like "closure", "retribution", "revenge" to justify an act of murder, no matter how satisfying such an act would be. Allowing the act of murder by the state as a public service adds another air of legitimacy.

Let's say you put this creep in the same room as the victim's family and friends. Some speculate that it would be the most merciful form of killing, because it would likely happen in an instant. Anybody who has looked into executions, however, know that extinguishing another life has little satisfaction and, honestly, merely reduces the victims and society to the level of the scumbag who did it in the first place.

I think the death penalty fits as a proportional retributive punishment, but my understanding of lex talionis is that it is a right that belongs to the victim (not society). Barring a discovery that the victim was morally opposed to the death penalty (seems unlikely for someone in a religion that excommunicate parishioners for 'brazen or loose conduct') the death penalty is warranted if guilt is unuestionable.

I would favor a system whereby those who are morally opposed to the death penalty could opt out of it (for themselves). If a murder victim was strongly opposed to the death penalty, the government should not be able to death-penalty retribution in their name. Let death penalty opponents opt out in advance (it is a bit morbid, but we let the state keep track of the organ donor option through the DMV - why not this?).

Murderers of death-penalty opt-outs would still qualify for life imprisonment (on retributive basis and for protection of society).

So the rest of us do not have to engage is a mass orgiastic 10-year march to death. It puts us at the level of the killer and in the worst company worldwide. It consumes so very much energy. It's not necessary. It certainly isn't healthy. Or pretty. Or cheap.

Seems to me there is no sane way to incorporate the minds of people who do these sorts of incomprehensibly abominable things. I do think we could find a more rational way to deal with it.

It is amazing that the bleeding heart's have quickly forgotten that the young 21 year old lady was kidnapped at gunpoint, forced to perform a sex act at gunpoint and the executed.... You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Hard core convicts do like scumbags like the accused, I doubt he lives to see his 30th birthday. If the State pusses out and doesn't execute him, the convicts will. I will applaud them if they do

The death penalty is an atavistic barbarity and the people who support it are either moral cowards or complete jackasses or both. Full stop. Now I can await the violent meathead response to my my craven liberal drivellings... But in the meantime, I will predict, based on some insider understanding of how capital cases proceed (and I predict he will be charged with agg murder if he has not been already) that he will plead for life w/o parole, i.e. "true life." The evidence in this case is apparently very, very strong and his attorneys will therefore have little wiggle room in the plea negotiations. Note that he is being charged in Clackamas County where the DA's are smart enough and reasonable enough to recognize true life as a good outcome and are not likely to be eager to waste a lot of their time and our money chasing death. BUT NEVER FORGET...the DA's are ultimately stuck with the case the cops have made. As I noted above, the evidence appears rock solid in this case. But so did it in OJ. This guy's lawyers are charged with saving his life and that is what they will pursue, taking advantage of any flaws in the state's case. So if you see a plea that makes you sick - something like life with parole after 25 years - be careful whom you blame for such a "travesty." The Clacko DA's will play the hand that they have been dealt very hard and they are very competent people. But in a case like this, there are ALWAYS facts that we on the outside do not know that can make a mess of something that from a distance can look like it is wrapped up pretty tightly.

Allan, I suppose if we published the opt-out list it might be a credible basis for eventually determining whether capital punishment is really a deterrent to murder (but it would probably take a century to come up with a sample that is large enough to study the correlations).

"why in god's name would anyone want government to have the ability to kill people"

why in god's name would anyone want government to have the ability to lock up people for life?

At this stage, it seems thru confession and evidence well beyond a reasonable doubt he made a totally innocent woman (who wanted to raise her own family) last few moments on earth a torturous hell. In addition to depriving her family and husband of someone they love forever.

If you feel that is worthy of free housing and meals for the extent of his natural life, then I guess there is no use arguing. If you're going to use the argument that nothing will bring her back, then why punish him at all?

Obviously the answer is that the sentence of life without parole should be meted out with much more ease and frequency, in exchange for abolishing the death penalty, thereby saving money for the greater good, while appeasing all the sniveling liberal anti-death-penalty-for-anyone (even for those who have confessed to their crimes and are the most stone-cold blooded, feral excreta imaginable).

The only losers would be the poor jail keepers, who would need to up their transcendental meditation sessions to 8 hours a day just to stay sane guarding the ever-multiplying pigs entrusted to their lifelong care. There was a great piece I read a while back arguing for the death penalty, I don't agree with it, but got a great kick out of reading it.

I am with Steve here. It speaks well of society to have Justice. However if the result of our Justice is that we have to pay for the warm, dry, well-fed and exercised upkeep of this #*&@#^*&$
for the rest of our lives, then he wins. He got to do the most foul and despicable thing in the world, and we pat him on the back and give him free room and board for life.

Don't forget health care. But really, is anyone morally opposed to having the convict pay, or work, for the const of his or her confinement? If economic burden on the state is the issue, the Social Security Administration has a long list of people who would be candidates for elimination.

Pancho said:
"I would favor a system whereby those who are morally opposed to the death penalty could opt out of it (for themselves). If a murder victim was strongly opposed to the death penalty . . . ."

Oregon actually already has an "opt-in" list. To have your name on the list costs $65 every four years and you have to complete a class to qualify. You can not opt-in to the Death-Penalty-for-Your-Killer list if you are or ever have been a criminal.

People on this list statistically have a lower arrest rate than sworn law enforcement officers.

I'll take it one step further: it the "true life" convict wants food, he/she MUST work to earn it. If they want a blanket, or a pillow, that requires more work. Books, TV time, radio, etc: all require work. No different than the manner in which the rest of us have to earn our living.

If they choose to starve to death (or forego life's pleasures), that's their choice. Knowing that progressives are adamantly pro-choice, I count on their full support.

Another important change, in addition to making life imprisonment without parole very easy to impose on certain kinds of violent criminals, is to mandate that those prisoners be completely free from any kind of medical care while incarcerated. Nature should take them at her own pace, and they should be received in their final destination without delay, absolutely unhindered by our justice system.

Molly - It is important not to refer to the bible for things like this. Though it may sanction the death penalty, it also has a lot of other rules and consequences that not even the best of Christians follow. For example, by your name I assume you are a woman. Corinthians instructs you to be silent in the company of men, especially when it concerns matters of religion. So you are already breaking explicit biblical rules.

Not telling you to shut up, I'm just pointing out the pitfalls of using biblical references as back up, at least in this case.

As for the topic at hand, I find it sad that as a society our death penalty has been turned into such an impotent weapon. It doesn't happen quick enough or consistently enough for it to be a real deterrent or a comfort to the families. The cost is also outrageous, but that's the case with all legal proceedings.

How about we let the next of kin decide. Give them a little chart of choices, "Would you like him to be hung, gas chambered, firing squad, life sentence, rubber hosed or lethal injection?"

Here, let me make this easy for the meat head quorum by articulating a few simple rules that even you baboons can understand:
1. Government is always wrong when they do incredibly intrusive or oppressive things that that you don't like, like charging you for cleaning leaves from the street, or regulating the disposal of your garbage, or making the streets safer for the arrogant pinko faggots who choose to commute by bicycle, but that same government should be trusted with the power of homicide, despite a constant discovery of cases in which innocent people have been murdered by the state, and even more evidence that the death penalty is meted out in a way the demonstrates gross racial bias.
2. Cops are friggin' gods who solve every crime with the surgical precision that we have all become accustomed to sitting on our fat asses in front of the television. They also never plant evidence, destroy evidence, lie under oath, violate civil liberties, or charge on the basis of personal bias. Ditto for the DA's. Really. It's true. Except of course in EVERY case when they interfere with one of you by, say, citing you for a moving vehicle or parking violation. Then they are incompetent assholes like every other government employee.
3. The rule of law is for pinko faggots. Truly worthy individuals, like REAL MEN, christians, republicans, mouth breathing idiots and so called "patriots" know better and should be allowed to render whatever punishments they feel are appropriate to whomever they want on an ad hoc basis. Interference with rule by angry mob is just another commie faggot plot to undermine the heart and soul of REAL America.
4. Absolutely nothing is more amusing to somebody like me than the sight and sound of a table pounding law and order baboon writhing and screaming when the organs of their beloved police state are turned on them. At that point, due process, and mitigating evidence, and Brady v. Maryland, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America start to matter real fast. Should the violence and summary judgement and punishment that gets you all drooling become the social norm over and above a judicially administered rule of law, you fools are screwed at least as badly as everybody else, and probably worse than most because you haven't the imagination or wiles to survive in a society in which survival becomes an imperative. So pound your tables and curse me and all the other liberals and due process advocates all you want and drown in your own drool for all I care. But also pray to god that you never get the kind of society that you wish for. You won't survive it.

"When you sentence someone, it is more than vengeance. Part of it is to remove the threat to society and part of it is to demonstrate that bad behaviors merit an appropriate response."

This statement is very articulate and covers a lot of ground. Our society, like every society, is comprised of a non-criminal majority that deserves and requires protection from a criminal minority. Consider the motto of LAPD: "To Serve and Protect." Part of that protection is achieved through the administration of "appropriate" sanctions against offenders. The moral argument against capital punishment is that it is inappropriate in all cases. The practical arguments are that it has resulted in hundreds of known cases in the history of America alone in which innocent individuals have been put to death for crimes that they did not commit, and that it has never been proven to have any crime deterrent effect whatsoever. Part of the reason that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent is that virtually all of the crimes designated as "capital" involve homicides that were inevitably committed in situations of extreme emotional distress or simply extreme stress or under the influence of mind-altering substances. In these situations, killers are not thinking about the death penalty. They are just killing. Study the matter. Talk to killers. More often than not, the act occurs very quickly and even spontaneously. Yes, there is often mens rea, but, again, fearing death is not part of the equation. When we choose an eye for an eye in these cases, we are deterring no one; protecting no one. Rather we are exalting killing in a manner that has been rejected by virtually every democratic nation in the modern world. We are defining "American exceptionalism" in terms that reveal us to be brutal, blood lusting moral cowards incapable of grasping the moral,intellectual and practical arguments against capital punishment. Regarding the case under discussion, we need to recognize what facts we do not yet know. I am willing to concede that the suspect in custody is most likely guilty of the crimes for which he been charged and, if so, deserves to be isolated from a normal life in society just as much as we deserve to be protected from him forever. But I suspect that we will soon be learning that when he killed that young girl, he was whacked out of his mind on some East County Drano cocktail and was completely incapable of forming a rational thought about consequences up to and including death. Do you remember the Doug Swanson murder? Doug was a very good friend of mine and one of my mentors at law. Google the case if you don't remember it and learn that the dogs who killed him were so high that they not only turned down a 20k cash offer to let him go before they stole a whopping 700 bucks through his ATM card, but they did not even realize that they had killed him. A scumbag named Stuart Lueb plead true life for that one and so got his due. But under the circumstances of the homicide no threat of consequence could have deterred that moron. Would it have been immensely satisfying to have seen Lueb roasted? Well, sure. But indulgence of base desires does not a well ordered society make. Diminishing ourselves to the level of those whom we most despise accomplshes nothing beyond that.

So what do you call putting someone in jail for life if not "vengeance".

Protection of the people. Justice of the State.

Your suggestion for a cold-blooded rape/murder?

Was this cold-blooded? Hot-blooded? Sick-blooded? I contend that a State cannot make a hot-blooded response. Do you want to bury their bodies in sand and stone their heads til they're dead? Hang them in the public square?

I can understand the emotion but I cannot translate that to a defensible or justifiable State response.

When I studied criminal law as a student, 37 years ago, there were four reasons given for criminal punishment: rehabilitation, retribution, restraint, and deterrence. Rehabilitation is a joke, and so that leaves us with three. Retribution is one of the three, and it's part of what makes the victims rights movement in criminal law an emerging trend.

"Vengeance is mine," says the Lord, but our society has long said otherwise.

If restraint were really effective, this guy would never get out of prison. I don't care what he or some shrink says, it can't be trusted, and he should be restrained permanently. If we really had life without parole for him, then maybe that would be enough punishment. But if he isn't fried, he'll get some sort of goofball sentence that will allow him to walk eventually. And maybe rape and kill somebody else.

Do you mean rehabilitation in general is a joke, or for extreme cases like this? There are a great many functional members of our society that did foolish, criminal, sometimes violent things in their youth but turn it around.

A few criminals do rehab themselves. But even in that minority of cases, is it prison that brings about the change, or something else? Overall, prisons do not rehabilitate anybody.

Oh, there we are agreed. The people that turn it around I think do it despite our justice system. I can't see how sticking somebody into a micro-society where all their peers are criminals would habilitate anybody. I don't think our prisons are good at rehabilitating people, and we should try to learn to do it more effectively.

Steve: I never suggested criminals like this could be rehabilitated. I doubt the sickness of his mind can even be understood. It doesn't matter. No one has suggested there is not a responsibility to protect society from "these animals." A majority of Americans still support the death penalty, but offered the choice between that and guaranteed life in prison with no possibility of parole, in polls the majority now chooses that. I have no concern for this killer whatsoever. But there is no question that some innocent people have been put to death, and a number in recent years exonerated while on death row due to new DNA evidence. My concern is not for the killers but for the rest and the whole of us.

"If restraint were really effective, this guy would never get out of prison. I don't care what he or some shrink says, it can't be trusted, and he should be restrained permanently. If we really had life without parole for him, then maybe that would be enough punishment. But if he isn't fried, he'll get some sort of goofball sentence that will allow him to walk eventually. And maybe rape and kill somebody else."

The comment above is not per se unreasonable but it does ignore certain realities. To wit:

Reality number 1: The only way this guy gets death is if he goes to trial. He will never plea for it. Not only is the outcome of a trial uncertain, but it forces the victim's family to relive the worst experience in all their lives. And they will relive it again during the penalty phase. And again and again as his lawyers fight a capital sentence. Let's consider the case of Dayton Leroy Rogers, about whom one capital defense attorney said to me, "if the death penalty was meant for anybody, it is him." Rogers has been convicted of torturing and killing six women, and yet the State of Oregon has screwed up his sentencing so badly that two weeks ago his THIRD capital sentence was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court because of outrageously stupid and prejudicial conduct on the part of the last sentencing judge. So Rogers is now headed for a fourth sentencing trial on our dime. The statistical likelihood in Rogers' case is that the state, you know, those guys who we hate so much for making us pay for leaf removal, will screw up again. By the time this idiotic farago is over, Rogers will have died in prison while we waste millions of dollars attempting to effectuate a moral outrage. A plea of true life would have avoided this carnival of vengeance and waste.

Reality Number 2: My capital defense friends tell me that I was wrong to incite a riot here by suggesting that the killer in the instant case might be able to plea for life with the possibility of parole in 25. The inside guess is that he will get life with the possibility of parole in 30. But do note that this only a POSSIBILITY. The great likelihood is that parole will be denied and that this guy will be out of sight forever. The same must be said about the "Wendy's Monster" who has gotten play on this blog. Yes he was sentenced to ONLY 36 years on a plea. But he is 50. And HIV positive. AND HE WILL NEVER BE PAROLED. So where is the issue? Well I guess the issue is that the armchair crowd is disappointed that a ten year old boy will not be compelled to testify under oath in open court about a life crushing trauma as his agonized parents are forced to watch. And I guess that issue is amplified by the fact that armchair crowd is just really bummed that they will never be able to watch that show on the boob tube.

Now I realize that it is Jack's view that the possibility of parole represents a "failure of society" because he said so in response to one of my earlier posts. But I can only wonder what he thinks about the recent revelations about the administration of the death penalty in Kentucky, which were addressed in an Op Ed in the NYT today as follows:

"The death penalty in Kentucky is colossally unfair, costly and riddled with constitutional error. From 1976 through last year, of the 78 people sentenced to death in the state, 50 had their sentences overturned on appeal, with 15 of those for prosecutorial mistakes or misconduct.

In December, a report conducted by the American Bar Association based on a two-year review by a team of lawyers, professors and former members of the State Supreme Court found enormous problems with the state’s capital system.

Kentucky’s laws and procedures, the report said, failed to “protect the innocent, convict the guilty and ensure the fair and efficient enforcement of criminal law in death penalty cases.”

For instance, among the state’s 57 prosecutors’ offices, some “will charge every death-eligible case as a capital case” while most others do not. This means that the pursuit of the death penalty in Kentucky is largely arbitrary and capricious, determined by which office happens to be prosecuting the case.

Judges presiding over capital trials often give inadequate jury instructions so that almost half of the jurors interviewed in a long-term study did not understand that they could consider mitigating evidence at sentencing, which could allow them to avoid imposing the death penalty. The system does not protect the rights of people with severe mental illnesses who, the United States Supreme Court has said, cannot be sentenced to death. And there are no standards governing the qualifications for lawyers who handle capital cases, with dreadful consequences: 10 of the 78 people sentenced to death had lawyers who were later disbarred.

In 2010, a state court blocked Kentucky from executing anyone because of “substantial legal questions regarding the validity” of its lethal injection protocol. That ruling alone should be the end of capital punishment."

Of course, what is quoted above, however well supported by facts, is merely the opinion of the NYT Op Ed page, which is scripted by pointy-headed liberal jackasses like me. But still I am going to tread out on the limb here and say that if you can identify any greater failure of a civilized society than the travesty so carefully documented in Kentucky, I will happily relegate my hard won "Jackass of the Year" honor to you.

"A few criminals do rehab themselves. But even in that minority of cases, is it prison that brings about the change, or something else? Overall, prisons do not rehabilitate anybody."

Overall I agree with this remark. That is why, as a worthless, liberal, idiot, pinko faggot, I have long advocated for prison reform. You see, as a pinko faggot, I made the startling revelation that the vast majority of those whom we send out of our neighborhoods for breaking the social contract in a criminal way actually come back. So I figured there was a pinko faggot argument to be made for actually using the money we spend on warehousing people in places where they really learn the skills of the criminal trade to actually try to educate and reform them. You see, as "Jackass of the Year" I surmised that my neighbors and I would actually save money and be safer if prisons served a useful rehabilitative function. But of course, who really cares about fiscal prudence, public safety and common sense when bloodlust is at issue.

Anyway, following my jackass, pinko faggot inclinations I helped now Oregon State Senator Chip Shields, a notorious jackass pinko faggot like me, found an organization called Better People that uses a twelve step program and job training and placement to keep former offenders from returning to their old ways. Talk about coddling criminals! We actually treat this people like human beings! Can you believe it? Must make your blood boil. And to make matters worse, we now rent space in the Planned Parenthood building on MLK! Yes folks, jackass liberal trash are we. And proud of it, folks. Today, tomorrow and everyday that we are reminded of the stupidity and illogic that pervades the public response to criminal justice and rehabilitation issues and the dire necessity for pinko faggots like us to push back.

A majority of Americans support life imprisonment with no possibility of parole if that option were available instead of the death penalty. Is that clearer? That is the majority preference as to how "to protect the sane and responsible members of society from these animals."

Cozmic Ed is my hero. He could use some lessons in brevity and pithyness (only us fellow pinko faggots read paragraphs that long) but otherwise is taking the mouth breathers to school. They won't learn anything, but it is adorable watching them throw spit balls at the teacher.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 66
At this date last year: 144
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269